Wilson v Westfield Holdings Ltd
[2010] FMCA 861
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| WILSON v WESTFIELD HOLDINGS LTD & ANOR | [2010] FMCA 861 |
| PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – No jurisdiction – dismissal of application. |
| Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), s.39 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), ss.45D, 86 |
| Applicant: | SHAUNA-MARIE WILSON |
| Firs Respondent: | WESTFIELD HOLDINGS LIMITED |
| Second Respondent | COLES GROUP LIMITED |
| File Number: | SYG 2067 of 2010 |
| Judgment of: | Barnes FM |
| Hearing date: | 12 October 2010 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 12 October 2010 |
REPRESENTATION
| Applicant: | In person |
| Solicitors for the First Respondent: | Colin Biggers & Paisley |
| Solicitors for the Second Respondent: | Wotton & Kearney |
ORDERS
The application be dismissed.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG2067 of 2010
| SHAUNA-MARIE WILSON |
Applicant
and
| WESTFIELD HOLDINGS LIMITED |
First Respondent
| COLES GROUP LIMITED |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from transcript)
This is an application filed on 20 September 2010 seeking orders against respondents named as Westfield Holdings Limited and Coles Group Limited. Ms Wilson seeks orders that Westfield cease any conduct which restrains her from acquiring goods or services from any merchant or trader upon the site known as Westfield Shoppingtown Chatswood, ancillary orders, and also damages.
An accompanying affidavit sworn on 7 September 2010 by Ms Wilson indicates that it is intended to claim that there has been a breach of s.45D of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) that in some way involves Coles Group Limited, with whom Ms Wilson claims to have been in dispute. Ms Wilson claims in effect that she has been prevented from engaging in trade or commerce or acquiring goods or services from persons or corporations within the Westfield Shopping Centre at Chatswood.
While the documents filed are not in the form of proper pleadings, a significant issue was immediately apparent which I raised with Ms Wilson (who is self-represented) and also with the legal representatives appearing for each of the respondents (albeit there is an issue about the correct identification of the respondents). The issue of concern is that this court does not have jurisdiction to deal with matters arising under s.45D of the Trade Practices Act. Section 86(1A) of the Trade Practices Act which confers jurisdiction on this court in relation to matters arising under that Act provides that:
Jurisdiction is conferred on the Federal Magistrates Court in any matter arising under section 46, Part IVA, Part IVB, Division 1, 1AAA, 1A or 2A of Part V or Part VA, or a provision of the Australian Consumer Law, in respect of which a civil proceeding is instituted by a person other than the Minister.
Section 45D is in Part IV of the Trade Practices Act. This court lacks jurisdiction to deal with the asserted breach of s.45D of the Trade Practices Act. It is not apparent from the documents before the Court that the Court otherwise has jurisdiction to deal with the matters which Ms Wilson wishes to raise in these proceedings.
I raised this issue at the first directions hearing in order to ensure that costs were not incurred in circumstances where it appeared that the court lacked jurisdiction. Ms Wilson made an oral request that the matter be transferred to the Federal Court. The court has power to transfer matters to the Federal Court. In deciding whether to do so the court must take into account the matters specified in s.39(3) of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), which include the interests of the administration of justice, and also the matters in the Federal Magistrates Court Rules. This includes, among other things, the wishes of the parties. A further consideration is whether the proceeding, if transferred, is likely to be heard and determined at less cost and more convenience to the parties than if not transferred. In this case, additional cost would be incurred as a result of a transfer because the application is not, in my view, in a state that at present could properly be dealt with by the Federal Court in accordance with the requirements of that Court and having regard to the fact that the legal representatives for each of the named respondents have indicated that, in their view, the correct respondents have not been identified. They have provided informally through the court some information to Ms Wilson that may assist her to identify the correct respondents. In addition, the allegations of breaches of the Trade Practices Act would have to be properly pleaded. I make no comment on whether other matters that might not be seen to arise under s.45D may be dealt with by the Federal Court, but it is clear that they would need to be properly pleaded.
It is not possible for me to express any view on the material before me as to whether the claim under the Trade Practices Act would have any prospects of success. It is, however, perhaps a matter that Ms Wilson may wish to give consideration to before seeking to further agitate such a claim.
On balance, I have formed the view that the interests of justice would not be served by transfer of these proceedings to the Federal Court. Rather, it is appropriate to dismiss the proceedings for want of jurisdiction. It would be open to Ms Wilson, if she wished to do so, to institute fresh proceedings under the Trade Practices Act in the Federal Court.
I find that I have no jurisdiction to entertain the application under the Trade Practices Act. In these circumstances, as there is otherwise nothing in the application or affidavit to indicate that there is a cause of action within the jurisdiction of the court, the application is doomed to fail and the proceedings should be dismissed.
I certify that the preceding eight (8) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Barnes FM
Associate:
Date: 3 November 2010
0
0
0